Ian Paterson was jailed for 20 years in August.
Photograph: Joe Giddens/PA

The government will launch an independent national inquiry into the actions of the rogue surgeon Ian Paterson, who was sentenced to 20 years in jail in August after carrying out needless surgery on patients who were left traumatised and scarred.

The inquiry will begin in January and report in the summer of 2019, and will be chaired by the Right Rev Graham James, the bishop of Norwich.

Paterson, a consultant breast surgeon at the Heart of England NHS foundation trust (HEFT) who practised privately at Spire Parkway and Spire Little Aston, was found guilty in April of 17 counts of wounding patients with intent.

The government said the scope of the investigation would include the independent sector, and it would examine whether the Care Quality Commission’s inspection regime needed to be strengthened.

The health minister Philip Dunne said he was determined that lessons would be learned so that similar problems could be avoided in both the NHS and the private sector.

Concerns were raised about Paterson as far back as 2003 but, despite several internal and external investigations and complaints from patients, GPs and other surgeons, the General Medical Council did not suspend him until 2011.

Dunne said: “Ian Paterson’s malpractice sent shockwaves across the health system due to the seriousness and extent of his crimes. I believe an independent, non-statutory inquiry, overseen by Bishop Graham James, is the right way forward to ensure that all aspects of this case are brought to light and lessons learned so we can better protect patients in the future.”

Lawyers for Paterson’s victims said they were disappointed that the inquiry would not be statutory and would not have the power to force people to give evidence under oath or give binding recommendations.

“We have previously expressed doubt in the current government’s political commitment to take on and tackle failings of the private health sector that were so vividly exposed in this terrible case,” said Tom Jones, the head of policy at Thompsons Solicitors, which represented about 500 victims. “Our concerns are reinforced by the potential for this inquiry to kick the can down the road and whose recommendations will not be binding.”

Kashmir Uppal, of Access Legal, said the inquiry was a “positive step” but victims were disappointed and concerned. “The government has said patients’ interests will be put at the heart of this inquiry and so it must take place in public and fully expose the failings that allowed Ian Paterson to continue practising in the private sector long after concerns were raised about him.”

James, the inquiry chair, said serious questions remained unanswered. “It is vital that the inquiry be informed by the concerns of former patients of Ian Paterson and their representatives,” he said. “The interests of all patients, whether they seek treatment in the NHS or the private sector, should be at the heart of this inquiry.”

The government said the inquiry would consider oversight of care in the private sector, the sharing of complaints between private hospitals and the NHS, the role of private health insurers, and arrangements for medical indemnity cover for clinicians in the private sector.

One of Paterson’s former patients, Sarah Jane Downey, said she was pleased the inquiry would report quickly, but she shared the concerns of other victims. “It worries me that the inquiry won’t have the ability to compel witnesses. We know there were people who aided and abetted Paterson and they need to answer questions,” she said. “It is a worry that it could be toothless.”

Spire Healthcare, which runs Parkway and Little Aston hospitals, where Paterson practised, initially argued that as Paterson was not technically its employee, it was not responsible for his actions.

In September, it agreed to settle all claims against it relating to Paterson, paying £27.2m into a £37m fund, with the balance funded by Paterson’s insurers and the Heart of England trust.